Slashdot Mirror


Meet Drone Shield, an Ambitious Idea For a $70 Drone Detection System

An anonymous reader writes "Here's an Interesting idea of how to use a Raspberry Pi and a few other inexpensive items to make a low cost detection system. From the article: 'The Drone Shield would combine a Raspberry Pi, a signal processor, a microphone, and analysis software to scan for specific audio signatures and compare them against what known drones sound like. (Because obviously a Predator drone is going to sound very different than a small quadcopter.) Once a match is found, the Drone Shield then sends an e-mail or SMS to its owner...'"

159 comments

  1. Interesting... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

    Good job. This tech could be used for a lot of other good things as well. Basically an electronic ear for specific frequencies. I'm surprised it's not much more developed.

    Question is, will it have better acuity then a trained dog with excellent hearing?

    1. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ofcourse it's been done. There's a lot of military equipment that works like this.

    2. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If "better acuity" is a euphemism for it won't shit on your lawn, then yes.

    3. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never heard that.

    4. Re:Interesting... by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is much more developed, you just don't realize it. This sort of signal processing is used in ultrasound machines, your car, my boat, fetal heartbeat monitors, little credit card readers that attach to your phone via headphone jacks. ALL SORTS OF STUFF.

      Its all just an application of some FFTs and some weighting. It isn't even non-trivial for anyone with some basic understandings.

      Without any prior knowledge, I went from no understanding to of FFTs to writing code to detect lean fuel during runtime on my R/C airplane. A Raspberry PI is also way more CPU power than needed to do it, which means it can also do a whole bunch of other stuff too.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    5. Re:Interesting... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      I figured sonar and the like was high powered and non-passive. But after seeing the link below from anonymous in another thread of the discussion I see the idea of passive acoustic sensing has been around long enough (pre WWII) to be highly developed.

    6. Re:Interesting... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

      A Raspberry PI is also way more CPU power than needed to do it, which means it can also do a whole bunch of other stuff too.

      My ++ model will mine Bitcoins between drone attacks!

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    7. Re:Interesting... by Cryacin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Funny will be when they mount these drone shields, on drones. Then the drone shields will be warning you about other drone shields operating in the area.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    8. Re:Interesting... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Without any prior knowledge, I went from no understanding to of FFTs to writing code to detect lean fuel during runtime on my R/C airplane.

      That is fascinating. I feel motivated to go out and try myself, now

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FFTs are not used in magstrip reading software.

    10. Re:Interesting... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      little credit card readers that attach to your phone via headphone jacks.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    11. Re:Interesting... by ttucker · · Score: 2

      FFTs are not used in magstrip reading software.

      But they are used extensively while processing audio signals to digital ones.

      little credit card readers that attach to your phone via headphone jacks.

      The OP specified something that plugs into the analog microphone jack of a phone to transfer digital information from a credit card, so I would say a DFT is probably occurring somewhere in there. :)

    12. Re:Interesting... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      While being used to run a 3D printer, of course.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have you got a link to that project?

    14. Re:Interesting... by tenco · · Score: 1

      Even if you can filter out the noise from the drone your drone shield's sitting on - how exactly does a drone shield sound?

    15. Re:Interesting... by DavidWeight · · Score: 1

      This is a great place to start, http://www.dspguide.com/

    16. Re:Interesting... by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 2

      Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    17. Re:Interesting... by neurovish · · Score: 1

      The ars article is light on details, but it looks like the author is leaning towards training a neural net to do the pattern matching since he mentions http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA320924

      I probably wouldn't go the FFT route since a neural net or wavelets probably work better...but I also haven't done anything of the sort in the past 5-10 years, so maybe things got better. You're looking at the audio signature to determine lean fuel?

    18. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah here I thought the poster was going to have some mildly interesting scenario like "drones listening for drones" but instead it was just pretty dumb.

      Even if you can filter out the noise from the drone your drone shield's sitting on

      This is actually even more interesting. You certainly can block them out like any phone or noise cancelling headset. However, more usefully, you can physically do noise cancellation (see "phase cancellation") if you can get decent audio output onto the thing. Stealth drone. Drone shield ineffective.

    19. Re:Interesting... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Are you the author? lol

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know if the movies, when the subs "go silent" and that one guy is listening to a pair of headphones and whispering what's going on outside?
      That's passive SONAR.

      In The Hunt For Red October they even sow a system that works exactly like this. It classified Red October's catipiller drive as a "geologic phenomena".

    21. Re:Interesting... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Trained dog? Probably not. I guess it's possible, but probably not. But - you can put this piece of pie on a pole, or whatever, and forget about it. Toss it on your roof, or put it on your bird feeder, whatever. No need to walk it, water it, or much anything else. No fleas. It won't steal your covers in the middle of the night. No muddy tracks in the hallway. All that it will ever need is a supply of electrons!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    22. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're Meme is tired. Let it rest.

    23. Re:Interesting... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Anyway, I ordered it, so we'll see how it goes! Thanks for the tip.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    24. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or vagina

    25. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is (a) the signal-to-noise ratio is ridiculous in this application, and (b) you're trying this against the budget of the US Military. Let's say that you overcome the technical challenges of (a). Now, the military just pays Boeing/Lockheed/Drones-R-Us to retrofit their drones with a slightly different propeller, and now you have to go through the process all over again. Hell, the military could even put speakers on the drone that just blast noise at the same volume as the propellers, but in a way that disguises the frequency-domain of the signal. The system simply would not be robust enough for military use, which is why so much military hardware costs an arm and a leg.

    26. Re:Interesting... by DavidWeight · · Score: 1

      I'm not the author, but one of the reasons I recommended it is that's it's completely free to download (legally)-only the printed, bound book is sold,
      http://www.dspguide.com/pdfbook.htm
      And it does cover exactly the stuff that you'll need to make something like this

    27. Re:Interesting... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Spend a bit more and go the simpler route of radio detection finding equipment. Drones are really quite radio chatty and sourcing a radio emission from altitude (video feed so the remote operator can see where they are going) tend to give them away.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    28. Re:Interesting... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Yes, I did not think very deeply about it. I should have known better.

    29. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How many drones would a drone shield shield if a drone shield could shield drones?

    30. Re:Interesting... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Hehe, in some countries dogs are the low tech cheap option when theres tons of strays already. You'd be surprised at how easy some are to train, I would imagine some train themselves. We have a dog, and there are certain things that set her running and barking and its not the neighbors, its something halfway across the neighborhood. No way for us humans to tell what it was.

    31. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're looking at the audio signature to determine lean fuel?

      I believe there's a definite change in engine pitch, which would come through clear in an FFT.

    32. Re:Interesting... by Samizdata · · Score: 1

      Yo yo yo, that's why I gots this Trace Buster BUSTER. See, when the mother-f*cker tries to bust your trace with a trace buster. This mother-f*cker is gonna bust the mother-f*cking trace buster that's bustin' your... uh...

      Trace!

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
  2. Range by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A Predator has an operating ceiling of 25,000 feet. You think a raspberry pi and mic is going to hear a Predator drone in cruise mode that's 5 miles above? You can't even hear a massive passenger jet at that altitude! Now a quadcopter is a different story, as they are as loud as can be, but saying this system would work on something like a Predator is a stretch.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, you'll need some bigger tools for that.

    2. Re:Range by multiben · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because you can't hear it doesn't mean a microphone can't pick it up. I am not going to google this because I am lazy, but I would not be surprised at all if a good quality, well aimed, highly directional mic could pick up enough of a noise to run an analysis.

    3. Re:Range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      So now the highly directional microphone has to be pointed toward the undetected drone in order to detect it? That makes perfect sense.

    4. Re:Range by PoliticalGamer · · Score: 1

      Are missles accurate from that altitude? I would expect the maximum firing altitude to be much lower than the maximum crusing altitude. While the device in question might not help much if you are being spied on by a drone, it seems possible that you could hear one which might be shooting at you soon. It is also worth mentioning that the operating celing is measured in feet above sea level, and a drone flying over the mountains in Pakistan is much closer to the ground.

    5. Re: Range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fleet of rasberry pi detectors attached to weather balloons?

    6. Re:Range by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      A quadcopter at $25k feet? Impressive, that I would like to see.

      You can't hear loud noises in the same room with you if you've tuned them out, just because your mind makes it out to be irrelevant background noise doesn't mean that its not there.

      The sound can be orders of magnitude lower in amplitude than the noise floor and DSPs can still pick up the signal.

      Your cell phone works with far worse signal to noise ratios than a mic finding a drone at 25k vertical.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    7. Re:Range by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      The basic hellfire missile (which are the ones they've acknowledged on the drones) has an operational range of 5 miles, 25k feet is less than 5 miles, so it depends on your definition. That would certainly be towards the maximum range, but gravity would help you get some more distance out of it.

      Of course, thats just what the government has ACKNOWLEDGED to exist. That basic hellfire spec comes from a missile made in 1985, not sometime in the last 10 years. Between upgrades and the fact that they don't tell us about their most impressive technology, I would say that hitting you from 25k feet is a walk in the park.

      Keep in mind, the hellfire for instance has both laser and radar guided variants. Not only can it see the target from 25k feet, it can read the newspaper, tell you the date, and tell you which comma its going to impact with first. The laser guided variant will hit where you aim the laser assuming it can get there before it runs out of fuel. The real question is, can you get the laser painter to the target. The laser painter being something that a rangers team would carry in to the target area and use to site the target and guide the drone's missile in.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    8. Re:Range by flayzernax · · Score: 2

      Hehe, yeah, but a whole bunch of these all over the place in a distributed network that all dumped to one database could make a very interesting historical map of drone flight paths.

    9. Re:Range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Years ago smart bombs used to track targets using the audio signature of enemy tanks and vehicles just like this. But you're not going to detect a drone from the ground in the audible range, the signal will be too weak for most equipment and environments. But you should be able to detect its communications and transmissions if you know what frequency range they use. You might be able to locate a drone using directional antennas.Many drone communications are currently still unencrypted and some have been able to eavesdrop on the video feed although most drones are moving to encrypt their transmissions. You should still detect the power in the signal if its encrypted though. They might use frequency hopping though which could make it more difficult to locate.

    10. Re:Range by fluffy99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So now the highly directional microphone has to be pointed toward the undetected drone in order to detect it? That makes perfect sense.

      If you're sophisticated and have multiple microphones in a well planned array, then you can aim your microphone in software and sweep the sky looking for the signature. Look up acoustic beam-forming. If the array is large enough you can estimate distance as well as angle. The bonus is that you get actual tracking instead of just detection.

      The problem would be processing power though. Simple implementations could range from 4 microphones that you sum/subtract to look at quandrants, up the way to something approaching what the US Navy does with its towed arrays. I doubt the PI could handle the processing of the signals in both the time domain to get tracking, and the frequency domain to do target qualification.

      Of course you also have the question of what do you do when you detect one? Aim a camera at it? Fire off your green laser? (no not suggesting you commit a felony).

    11. Re:Range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Predator ceiling 45000 feet

    12. Re:Range by Cryacin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dusts off old chestnut

      Sounds like you need a beowulf cluster for that!

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    13. Re:Range by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Yes flay, You could build a huge network over a wide area, with wired connections to each mic. Back to a central hub for very basic noise values math.
      The best location would be in a more empty state with lots of new drone 'schools' for maintenance, new staff needing many flight hours. This would give you some open space, a wide sky to scan and that real sound over many months.
      Due to the nature of drone training, one would expect this to be away from suburbia, the big air traffic hubs. Based on video capture to give you a visual of direction, very slight changes in every mic could build up some good basic math over time.
      Another option would be to have a small cam and mic in a rock/hide and massive data card to track over a few days. Place many over a wide area making them look like some simple audio/still frame university wildlife counting project.
      You could map the location of each device, play back the sounds and try and sync them all at a later date.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    14. Re: Range by bored_engineer · · Score: 1

      5x5280=26400

    15. Re:Range by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Informative

      Disclaimer, I was a submarine crewman and though I was a qualified sonar watchstander I was not a sonar tech. I have also studied fairly widely in the unclassified literature.

      So now the highly directional microphone has to be pointed toward the undetected drone in order to detect it? That makes perfect sense.

      If you're sophisticated and have multiple microphones in a well planned array, then you can aim your microphone in software and sweep the sky looking for the signature. Look up acoustic beam-forming. If the array is large enough you can estimate distance as well as angle. The bonus is that you get actual tracking instead of just detection.

      It's certainly simple - in theory. In reality, picking out such a faint noise from the background is Very Difficult Indeed.
       

      The problem would be processing power though. Simple implementations could range from 4 microphones that you sum/subtract to look at quandrants, up the way to something approaching what the US Navy does with its towed arrays. I doubt the PI could handle the processing of the signals in both the time domain to get tracking, and the frequency domain to do target qualification.

      Processing power, both for signal analysis (finding the faint signal) and for beamforming is on the beginning of your problems. Let's just hit the high spots:

      • The accuracy of your track is only as good as the accuracy of your microphone positioning. (You won't need surveyor grade accuracy, but you will probably need better than the three meter accuracy that WAAS/GPS provides.) You can't beamform if you don't know the relative locations of your microphones. Oh, and did I mention that sound is refracted as the temperature of the air changes? You'll have to account for that too - assuming you can get accurate enough data on current conditions.
      • You'll need some fairly clever filtering and processing to avoid the microphones being swamped by unrelated and louder background noise.
      • You also need high quality low noise amplifiers to bring the sound of Predator up to useable levels. (The highest quality commercial audiophile amplifier isn't even close. You need a supercomputer and audiophile gear by comparison isn't even as good as the throwaway calculators you get with your breakfast cereal.)
      • Speaking of the sound... different frequencies get attenuated and refracted differently. You'll have to account for that too.

      Etc... etc... The very definition of a non trivial project. You're essentially trying to replicate what the USN does with it's passive sonar systems, with dull and chipped stone knives. (You don't even have a bearskin. You don't even get a bearskin, just the aforementioned knives.)

    16. Re:Range by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      "So now the highly directional microphone has to be pointed toward the undetected drone in order to detect it? That makes perfect sense."

      Ever seen the rotating antenna of the radar on a boat? That's the reason it rotates.
      To detect undetected stuff.

      I guess if many people are ordering one of these drone detectors from a cave in Pakistan, it could be a clue that it works.

    17. Re:Range by xelah · · Score: 1

      I think that if you did do that, at least in certain countries, you'd discover it to be a very good way of making yourself the target of the next extrajudicial killing by the US state. Unless you think you could do all that without it being obvious to surveillance or any nearby intelligence services?

    18. Re:Range by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Are missles accurate from that altitude? I would expect the maximum firing altitude to be much lower than the maximum crusing altitude. While the device in question might not help much if you are being spied on by a drone, it seems possible that you could hear one which might be shooting at you soon. It is also worth mentioning that the operating celing is measured in feet above sea level, and a drone flying over the mountains in Pakistan is much closer to the ground.

      Well, I think the concern is domestic use, where missiles are unlikely to be a concern.

      However, I'd think that a missile would basically have infinite range downwards - it just has to fall. The main issue would be the range at which the seeker could acquire the laser spot. If the missile has gyros (seems likely) it could in theory be just directed along an arbitrary trajectory until it acquires the laser spot as well, which would extend the range beyond what it could actually see. That's what laser-guided bombs do - the plane drops them just like a dumb bomb at a particular location, and then the bomb just falls until it spots a laser and then it seeks. Often the laser isn't even turned on when it is first dropped.

    19. Re:Range by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I'd think that a distributed passive RF detection system would be more useful.

      Just about any aircraft reflects radio waves (even stealth aircraft - they just reflect them away from the transmitter). In theory passive devices could capture RF like a radar and look for reflections, and a bunch of these in different places could determine the position of any aircraft that reflects RF. That would likely have a range much larger than sound.

    20. Re:Range by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      This is why you automate it. So you can blind the drone's camera, but be far enough away from the site when the missiles hit. With the right cammo, the detector is only visible when it fires the laser, which it doesn't do unless it hears a drone. Passive surveillance/active response system for asymmetrical warfare.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    21. Re:Range by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Aye I was thinking the idea would be for a more opt in approach and people would do either a seti at home type application or it would get sent off to a nerd somewhere with some computing power. Since the gentleman running the project picked the raspberry pi as a platform it already has cellular capability to phone home collected data over time.

      Though personally I would be a bit iffy about leaving my rasberry pi out on a mountain range somewhere un-attended. Also the places you mention that would be good spots for listening are possibly pretty remote, thinking white sands, the Ft Bliss missile range, Arizona, Nellis, places way out away from civilization that have Airforce or Army Airbases near them.

    22. Re:Range by chihowa · · Score: 1

      The accuracy of your track is only as good as the accuracy of your microphone positioning. (You won't need surveyor grade accuracy, but you will probably need better than the three meter accuracy that WAAS/GPS provides.) You can't beamform if you don't know the relative locations of your microphones. Oh, and did I mention that sound is refracted as the temperature of the air changes? You'll have to account for that too - assuming you can get accurate enough data on current conditions.

      I like solving problems and this is somewhat similar to what I do for a living, so I'll speculate...

      In a similar approach to the use of a guide star in astronomy, you could use an airliner flying overhead (or a helicopter for a coarse calibration) to calibrate your microphone array and correct for changes in refraction. An airliner or helicopter will be easy to see with a camera, and of a known size, altitude, and speed.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    23. Re:Range by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Well, don't worry, because the Predator probably can't see you either at 25KFT.

  3. And then what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You run away?

    That's as much of a "shield" as a radar detector "protects" you from speeding tickets.

    1. Re:And then what? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      You run away?

      That's as much of a "shield" as a radar detector "protects" you from speeding tickets.

      OK, have it send the e-mail to your next of kin.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:And then what? by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The greatest use of drones is still reconnaissance. So you stop doing the illegal things until it's gone. Why run from a camera? Just hide your activities until it's gone.

    3. Re:And then what? by TedRiot · · Score: 1

      Fire your (directional) EMP generator at the drone, of course.

    4. Re:And then what? by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

      Why you unleash your interceptors ofcourse!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HnwhGgsgXc

      Imagine the look on the drone camera operators face when he see those coming.

      --
      ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    5. Re:And then what? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      A radar detector can protect you from speeding tickets. A laser detector...not so much.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:And then what? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Well, I suspect that in a few years the thing will basically tell you that there is a drone overhead 24x7. So, those with tinfoil hats basically will end up never going outside.

  4. Tough by Cassini2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's tough to reliably detect low-level background repetitive noise without detecting all sorts of nearby domestic appliances, car engines, and such. In the modern city, we live with *alot* of noise.

    Now, if the problem is to detect jet engines in rural areas featuring mountainous terrain, then I think I know what the point of this project is.

    1. Re:Tough by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be that bad.

      Have a 360Â servo with a 80Â-90Â servo mounted on it. Directional mic on top of all that.

      Arduino/Pi rotates the first servo 1Â then sweeps the second servo. Or vice versa.

      Feed that into an algorithm looking for prop noise. Most drone motors will be IC or electric. An IC will be running between 9K~18K RPM. Electric would be running from 7K on the low end to 30K on the high end. Realistically, an electric for drone use would be on the low end of that spectrum; the higher-RPM motors are usually for fast airplane.

      Take the RPM and figure a 2-bladed or possibly a 3-bladed prop. Filter bandpass for 15K~55K. Run that through a doppler-shift algorithm and filter out anything moving slower than 20MPH or faster than 200MPH.

      Using that, you should get pretty close.

      Once you have the location, feed that to another mount with a spotter-scope and webcam. If the image-detection stuff sees something other than sky or clouds, have it snap a few images and SMS/email them to you.

      I'm not entirely sure you will get good enough images to identify the specific UAV using servos programmed for Â. The servos usually range from 900-2100ms of pulse width with 1500 being "centered" on the servo. So, you can get it down to 3-steps per  on a 360 servo and 13-steps on a 90 servo if you use straight PWM and good digital servos.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    2. Re:Tough by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      Really, Slashdot? Really?

      Those "Â" thingies should have been the symbol for degrees.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
  5. And then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Someone comes along playing the sound of a drone on their smartphone and you realized what a waste of time and money it was.

    1. Re:And then... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Sure, and they'll be able to hold that smartphone up in front of another phone and play modem sounds and they'll be able to communicate at full 56k speeds!

      Not really, in both cases.

      You can't tell the difference, doesn't mean that the signal processor can't.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:And then... by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 1

      Someone comes along playing the sound of a drone on their smartphone and you realized what a waste of time and money it was.

      Here you go! Down near "Sound can be a "two-sided coin" in war, he argues."

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
  6. Pi fever by porkThreeWays · · Score: 2

    So, it's a project with a computer that happens to run on a slightly slower processor. If this ran on a mini-itx no one would even mention that part.

    --
    If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
    1. Re:Pi fever by MacTO · · Score: 2

      Of course, the Pi is also smaller and uses less power than a mini-itx board. Sticking something the size of a small tissue box in the backyard, and doesn't have an AC cord running into the house, is going to create a lot less friction with the spouse. Many people also find solving problems with constrained resources fun.

    2. Re:Pi fever by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      At least it's not an arduino.

  7. Cardinal vs. Mockingbird vs. Bluejay by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is more likely to work better as a "squirrel" vs. "bird" detector, or with good/better datasets, perhaps even as a "cardinal" vs. "bluejay" vs. "mockingbird" vs. "car alarm" detector, especially if the birds are in your front or back yard. But really, the concept of hearing a predator drone is very farfetched, unless the drone is flying super low for some reason!
    .
    Better to use this as an auto-logging device for some birders falling in love with counting how many birdies are coming by, or for recording to the exact micro-second when the swallows finally make it back to San Juan Capistrano!

    1. Re:Cardinal vs. Mockingbird vs. Bluejay by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hm. That might be interesting. Build a couple and put them a distance apart, plus a remote controlled super soaker. Sit in the basement and pretend it's a sub.

      "Skipper, we have a contact on bearing 238... probable squirrel class mammal, likely a grey!"

      "Do you have a firing solution?"

      "Range and course calculated skipper! Firing solution locked in!"

      "Fire!"

      "Skipper, sudden change of aspect on the contact. I have angry squirrel sounds."

      "Nice job, everybody."

    2. Re:Cardinal vs. Mockingbird vs. Bluejay by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      This is more likely to work better as a "squirrel" vs. "bird" detector, or with good/better datasets, perhaps even as a "cardinal" vs. "bluejay" vs. "mockingbird" vs. "car alarm" detector, especially if the birds are in your front or back yard.

      That is a much more practical and marketable idea. Now go build it!

    3. Re:Cardinal vs. Mockingbird vs. Bluejay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps even as a "cardinal" vs. "bluejay" vs. "mockingbird" vs. "car alarm" detector

      It sounds like someone is having mockingbird problems. My condolences. Do your mockingbirds also do the Nokia ringtone?

    4. Re:Cardinal vs. Mockingbird vs. Bluejay by RandomFactor · · Score: 1

      ...someone...please...make...this...

      --
      --- Mercutio was right.
    5. Re:Cardinal vs. Mockingbird vs. Bluejay by neurovish · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...how about something www.capistranoswallows.com running on a raspberry pi to present a webpage like http://www.abevigoda.com/

    6. Re:Cardinal vs. Mockingbird vs. Bluejay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rig that thing up to a air-soft gun or some other "area deterrence" system and I'd buy it. I would love to feed some of the more colorful/desirable bird species but the only thing that seems to hang around the feeder is the bird worlds equivalent of mice (starlings, sparrows, etc).

  8. Re:Only Workers Recolution will do by boundary · · Score: 1

    Hopefully better spelling will be a natural consequence of said recolution.

  9. Can't you just detect the RF? by Zakabog · · Score: 1

    Don't drones blast RF on known frequencies? Unless they're flying with auto pilot and just collecting data, but that would be dangerous in an urban environment with lot's of air traffic. How much would it cost to build something with an antenna that's just listening for broadcasts on these frequencies? You could even measure the doppler shift to see if they're coming or going, and at what speed. Listening for audible noise just seems useless anywhere outside of a big empty desert with a large directional microphone.

    1. Re:Can't you just detect the RF? by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      There are many types of drones. You're thinking of a more radio controlled type. The better ones just have a cellular chip in them and you control them over the internet. Rather than "Fly them" like an RC plane, you give it a target and it goes on its merry way. Once it has its instruction set it doesn't even need the cellular connection anymore, it can just fly back to "home base" once it has done whatever it is it was supposed to do.

    2. Re:Can't you just detect the RF? by citizenr · · Score: 1

      I think they are usually blasting up using sat uplink (military drones). Civilian ones use ordinary RC radios - good luck distinguishing between cordless phone, bluetooth and Fatuba working on 2.4GHz.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    3. Re:Can't you just detect the RF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they are usually blasting up using sat uplink (military drones). Civilian ones use ordinary RC radios - good luck distinguishing between cordless phone, bluetooth and Fatuba working on 2.4GHz.

      Well, that's exactly what example a CleanAir chip in Cisco LWAP's (WLAN AP) do. It detects dissects different radio sources from 2.4GHz to help isolating problems on network and it can compare profiles and say that you have a wireless phone or camera interference causiong problems in that location showing even interferenced area on the live map (WLC & WCS/Prime NCS MGMT system triangulates using several AP's) telling very detailed information.

      Telling a difference with right tools, is a walk in a park.

      ac

    4. Re:Can't you just detect the RF? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Depends on the drone.
      Some talk to a van direct. Great fun if the bad guys ever triangulate the base team :)
      Some long lasting loitering surveillance aircraft with a look down link gets more interesting. But that might be noticed long term.
      Other option is a satellite dish like link. Drone only transmits 'up', the van is half a world away.
      Long term expect a cheap blimp to sit over an area of interest. Just like a satellite dish link but massive bandwidth and very easy to add more blimps :)
      Almost autonomous is the next step. Visually distant, no chatter, no long term sat needed, no blimp, hard to see on any mil radar, just a zone to fly to and wait for a target with a human giving the final 'kill' command as needed.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:Can't you just detect the RF? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      and with laser quantum encryption only one other party would ever hear it.

    6. Re:Can't you just detect the RF? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Predators and Reapers at least do transmit a satellite video feed which can be picked up from the ground (completely unencrypted, last I heard). So yeah that's one "radio warning sign" that could be worth looking out for. A computer with a TV-tuner-based SDR could detect it. Even if they encrypt the feed, it would be worth knowing about any new satellite video signals that suddenly show up.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    7. Re:Can't you just detect the RF? by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      I imagine really smart reconnaissance drones would fly their mission then return to a safe zone behind your line to transmit and report home. Real time reconnaissance in an actual combat zone would be supported by the more directly controlled drones in which case finding the controller might be nice, but futile as well.

  10. Why would I need this when I could have NNS? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    Neighborhood Nuclear Superiority!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGCFmSFvIZw

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  11. Am I the only one who read that as "Meat Drone"? by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

    Seriously, when I read the headline, my mind read "Meat Drone Shield" and I thought at first there was some kind of organic meat shield which screwed up with drone targeting systems (like infra-red, etc.) and provided protection.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  12. Really? by human+spam+filter · · Score: 1

    When was the last time a drone was spying on you? I'm getting sick of this drone hysteria that is being hyped by the media and now apparently also by slashdot.

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The better question is, when was a meat drone not spying on you... Just better to get use to it, expect it, rather then wind up a hysterical basket case.

    2. Re:Really? by DeathGrippe · · Score: 1

      The point is that you don't know when they're spying on you - that's why they use drones in the first place. If they were easy to detect, they wouldn't be as useful.

    3. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is they don't really care to spy on you with drones. If you look up into the sky and see NOTHING, there's nothing there. Don't be a dipshit.

    4. Re:Really? by TheP4st · · Score: 1

      Not too long ago people said the very same thing as you do now about surveillance cameras in London.

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    5. Re:Really? by JeanCroix · · Score: 1

      Heh. And let's not even remind them of the imaging satellites that have already been in place for decades. Think Google maps has nice resolution?

  13. Do a smartphone app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not make it as a smartphone app?
    At least with a lot of smartphones they have 2 mics, one front and one back for noise cancellation. You would hold the phone face up and it would cut out the ground noise.

  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. Re:Only Workers Recolution will do by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    Nothing short of a Soviet Workers America can stop the genocidal depradations of the killer gang of Wall Street/Washington.

    Hopefully better spelling will be a natural consequence of said recolution.

    Ah, spelling. I was wanderg why he wanted to de-Prada his new Soviet state.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  16. Why do citizens have to defend themselves? by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 1

    Isn't the government supposed to be in service to the citizens? And here are the citizens getting organised and generating their own funding in order to defend themselves from the government. That's the same government which is 'elected' by the citizens. You know things are outrageously out of hand when citizens are funding the generation of defensive mechanisms to protect themselves from the military industrial complex of their government.

    Isn't it about time for honest Americans to stand up and say "I don't care how hungry my children are or how much I like playing with guns / flying drones or how good an education I get, I'm simply not going to fight to support a corrupt regime". After all, just about everyone in society knows the difference between right and wrong. Call me naive, but how can somebody put themselves in a position where they disregard their own morality? There's not enough benefits in any job to exercise a job description which involves attacking civilians. And make no bones about it, you aren't just "following orders".

    Quit trying to defend yourselves against a complex which is expecting and anticipating that you'll fight back. Start taking your own action to disempower the complex, it simply wouldn't work without the support of the citizenry. Convince yourself, convince your neighbours and then convince your 'leaders'. Isn't it about time?

    Take the red pill.

    1. Re:Why do citizens have to defend themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " And here are the citizens getting organised and generating their own funding in order to defend themselves from the government."

      Now you know why we have the 2nd. amendment - read what the founding fathers said about why it is important.

    2. Re:Why do citizens have to defend themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christians do it all the time. The whole definition of Christian is to disregard your own morality, and let someone else tell you what is right and wrong. You must be new here (no, not slashdot, the world).

    3. Re:Why do citizens have to defend themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, get involved in your local politics. Go to your next town council meeting. This is THE solution, and the geeky types are often great at looking into spend for those items the political types often try to hide. As an active participant in the process, this is great fun because I choose the time and the place to fire the rounds.

    4. Re:Why do citizens have to defend themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it comes to people who hold a right-libertarian world view, there is literally no arguing with them because it is impossible to argue rationally with someone who's core world view is fundamentally irrational.

  17. better idea by slashmydots · · Score: 3, Funny

    You actually don't need to listen for them. If you watch really carefully, you might be able to see part of your neighborhood blow up. Then you know a drone is overhead.

    1. Re:better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PCAS would be a better but more expensive idea. I am sure any legal drone has to carry a transponder for collision avoidance with other aircraft. This would work for high altitude large drones. Small quadcopters flying low would probably not require a transponder.

      http://www.zaon.aero/content/view/52/1/

  18. Re:Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As a commercial sUAS operator, this is depressing. To think that Americans believe their lives are so interesting that the government would care to spy on them is downright unbelievable, and I think the person trying to sell these "Drone Shields" should be tried before the Supreme Court. It seems everyone is trying to get a scoop of the "drone pie" these days, be it news sources, "terrorists," police departments, or people trying to sell "drone detectors."

    It just undermines the good uses for UAVs, like environmental monitoring, control of infectious disease, mapping, and agriculture. All the media including /. (!) cares about is selling some stupid sensational story about how "the government is going to spy on us and have missiles pointed at us all the time with these here drones." If you're gullible enough to believe this BS, then do something about it! Don't just sit on your asses and whine like sick dogs.

    Using an RPi for this is also plain overkill. You could do this unoriginal crap with an Arduino.

    This is obviously going to get downrated to oblivion since it's posted as Anon, but screw it. I forgot my password and don't feel like being tracked. If someone will read it, I'll have a little faith left in this cruel world.

  19. Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    As a commercial sUAS operator, this is depressing. To think that Americans believe their lives are so interesting that the government would care to spy on them is downright unbelievable, and I think the person trying to sell these "Drone Shields" should be tried before the Supreme Court. It seems everyone is trying to get a scoop of the "drone pie" these days, be it news sources, "terrorists," police departments, or people trying to sell "drone detectors."

    It just undermines the good uses for UAVs, which are environmental monitoring, disease spread reduction, and agriculture. All the media (including /.) cares about is selling some stupid sensational story about how "the government is going to spy on us and have guns pointed at us all the time with these here drones." If you're gullible enough to believe this BS, then do something about it! Don't just sit on your asses and whine like sick dogs.

    This is obviously going to get downrated to oblivion since it's posted as AC, but screw it. Someone will read it.

    Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one!

    1. Re:Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one! by emt377 · · Score: 1

      At least the tools of the fifth column are kept busy with an imaginary problem...

    2. Re:Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one! by anubi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Its not like we think our Government wants to spy on us because they think we intend them harm.

      I think its more down the line of : You just fixed your patio cover. Did you have a permit to do that (fee)? Did you have it inspected by the city inspector ( another fee ). We need to re-do your property tax!

      And gee whiz, what if someone is hanging their wash in the back yard on a clothes line instead of using a dryer!

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    3. Re:Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a commercial sUAS operator, this is depressing. To think that Americans believe their lives are so interesting that the government would care to spy on them is downright unbelievable

      As someone who's paid any fucking attention whatsoever during the past decade, to think that there are still Americans who are stupid enough to think the government is not spying on them is downright unbelievable.

      Newsflash, kid: They are.

      Now, the real question is - does it matter?

      As I watch the Federal government threaten businesses - as in, 40+ years in jail and life-ending fines - businesses that are legitimate and legal under California law...

      I've got to say: Fuck yes, it matters.

    4. Re:Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one! by Aserrann · · Score: 1

      In all honesty, while there are plenty of good reasons to dislike drones, I think this is a terrible one. You're worried that drones would allow them perfect enforcement of laws? How is this a bad thing exactly?

      Worst case I can think of is that they are enforcing bad laws in which case right now they might slip by because "no one ACTUALLY pays that fee!" except that a widely ignored but still on the books law is unfair to anyone who actually does follow it, or leaves it as an opening to target a person who hasn't done anything else wrong.

    5. Re:Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh the ironies! You support the drone business, even list the areas where the most positive applications still have potentially serious privacy issues. You think that an easily made device that offers only notifcation of drone deployment using passive sensors, using off the shelf hardware,should be tried in the highest court in the land. And then you go on to say "...don't feel like being tracked". You know something? A lot of us don't want to be tracked, we just include the real world and consider being protected from tracking there to be even MORE important than the collection of user data online.

      Do you honestly think that being boring is going to be a sufficient guarantee of privacy??? You clearly are not paying attention to the already WELL ESTABLISHED activities of some of your biggest customers. The government IS ALREADY spying on _everybody_. The various three letter agencies have been working towards "total information awareness" since the Reagan era for fucks sakes! They are deliberately collecting everything about everybody period. The current focus now on correlating and cross indexing the petabytes of data they are collecting weekly. They can, will and in many places already have, used the drones like the ones you operate to violate constitutional protections, international law and solemn treaty agreements. That is why a device like this is necessary.

      Or do you think that someone who designs a radar detector, burglar alarm, RFID masking wallet etc, deserves to be hauled before a judge as well?

      And please, don't trot out that tired old argument "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear". We have been seeing a huge rise in abuse of police powers the past decade, it's been proven over and over that if you give police the power to do something, they will abuse it as well if they can. (not entirely their fault in some ways. When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail and all that)

    6. Re:Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one! by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      As a commercial sUAS operator, this is depressing. To think that Americans believe their lives are so interesting that the government would care to spy on them is downright unbelievable

      For that, the gouvernment put quite a bit of effort into defining what can and what can't be done to American citizens using drones...

      And mostly while circumventing the checks and balances.

      --
      bickerdyke
    7. Re:Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one! by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      And gee whiz, what if someone is hanging their wash in the back yard on a clothes line instead of using a dryer!

      WHAT?? Someone drying clothes without using lots of electrical energy to power a big machine? How Un-American! :-)

      --
      bickerdyke
    8. Re:Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a military UAS operator, I think the naive pollyanish hope of a civil UAS market is misguided. None of the small UAS are anywhere near airworthy. How many of them have any redundant systems? They're a menace. Once they start being designed to be airworthy, then the market will implode because they'll be more expensive than manned aircraft. How could they not be? Adding the datalinks makes them more complex, they still require a "trained operator" whether or not you call them a "pilot" is irrelevant. More complex = more expensive.

      Show me any UAV that has truly redundant datalinks. Give you a hint. Global Hawk is the only one, and it's so fucking expensive that the Air Force plans to fly them from the production line to the boneyard.

    9. Re:Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you're a growing drugs in the open as a greedy bastard child of a Queen's convict, you might like this piece of affordable anti-law enforcement technology.

    10. Re:Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      You're worried that drones would allow them perfect enforcement of laws? How is this a bad thing exactly?

      Because the laws are not perfect....far, far from perfect.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    11. Re:Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I think the person trying to sell these "Drone Shields" should be tried before the Supreme Court

      Why? He's done nothing illegal, and certainly nothing as immoral as selling or running tech that can only profitably be used for warfare and surveillance.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    12. Re:Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one! by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 1
      "Perfect enforcement of laws"?

      No.

      What I think most people are worried about are false-positives. I don't want my front door destroyed, my friendly dog shot to death, and my reputation smeared because some doofus with a drone mistakenly ended up identifying the infrared signature of my heated fish tank as a "growing operation" inside the house, for example.

    13. Re:Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      How about all the stupid, pointless, and even unconstitutional laws?

      Hot Springs, Arkansas decided that it was going to "beautify" the lake fronts around it. So, they took to the skies, and took photos of everything. Your old care sitting out back had to be towed away. Your aluminum can collection had to go. The weathered siding on some buildings had to be replace, while other buildings were condemned. All because they wanted a "pretty" tourist trap.

      And, most of it was wrong.

      This was years ago, before the advent of drones. Today, Hot Springs probably has plans for daily flyovers. If they can catch you tanning in your enclosed back yard, you'll probably be ticketed for indecent exposure.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    14. Re:Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly, that is because you are unable to think.

    15. Re:Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How is this a bad thing exactly?"

      Because if you actually look at the criminal/regulatory codes you realize that virtually every human in existence from infants to the elderly technically violates the law on a daily (misdemeanors) AND weekly (felony) basis, and its getting worse. You can literally be arrested these days for standing on an empty sidewalk, not keeping your grass in good shape, asking a police officer "why" or for violating a software EULA. While of course even with perfect information not everyone will be charged with a crime, but anyone who annoys/talks back to those in authority will likely be charged. I don't know about you but I don't want to live in that kind of society.

    16. Re:Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      You're worried that drones would allow them perfect enforcement of laws? How is this a bad thing exactly?

      Because the impracticality of enforcement is why we don't have more ridiculous, privacy invading laws.

      What's to stop a politician from claiming an "open window loophole" that allows people to evade the tax on electricity for using air conditioning? So there is a $0.10 per hour per day per window tax on exploiting the open window loophole. They couldn't do this because enforcement would be impossible. Thousands of drones would make this possible. There is no constitutional right to having open windows. Since the outside of your house is in plain view of the public, you have no right to privacy to protect you from the observation of the outside of your house.

      These technologies enable government to reach into more aspects of our lives. That's why I oppose any expansion of government power.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    17. Re:Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one! by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Its projects like these that lead to things like.... uh... radar etc... he should get a government grant.

    18. Re:Predators are so cheap, everyone can have one! by anubi · · Score: 1

      Your second paragraph nailed it.

      We have so many laws on the books already, most unenforced, that everyone breaks on a daily basis as a routine part of life.

      So you want to make life hard for someone? Just snoop on them and demand the law concerning some trivial thing be enforced. Did you do some home maintenance sans licensed contractor? Having a backyard barbeque? Having a few neighbors over? Are you harboring a stray cat? Did you trap a possom that was messing up your garden and getting to your veggies first? Have a sibling over longer than some HOA spec? Maybe you had a smoke outside - you never know, there may be some law about it.

      I for one fear the police state we are evolving to, mostly because our law, like our tax code, is demeaning to a lot of us for the benefit of a few.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

  20. Would go something like this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ***Buzz***

    WTF does "inbound Hellfire mean?"

  21. You Have Mail by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    "Warning: Predator drone detec---"

    1. Re:You Have Mail by Chrisq · · Score: 0

      "Warning: Predator drone detec---"

      I hope so. The last thing we want is something cheap that can help the muslim terrorists escape

    2. Re:You Have Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the (on average) roughly 18 innocents that are killed with them in each drone strike...but you hate all Muslims so this should please you.

    3. Re:You Have Mail by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Or the (on average) roughly 18 innocents that are killed with them in each drone strike...but you hate all Muslims so this should please you.

      Well Muslims frequently use human shields but I really can't be pleased about people who may not have followed the instructions of their religion being killed.

  22. Yeah, right by Animats · · Score: 1

    Predator drones use a common small aircraft engine used on about 30 other small aircraft. Similar Rotax engines are used in snowmobiles, jet skis, go-carts, and other small engine applications.

    You're going to get an alarm every time something with a small engine goes by, and you probably won't pick up an aircraft flying high enough to not be blatantly annoying.

    If you want to detect nearby aircraft, build a radar. There are automotive anti-collision radars that could be adapted.

    1. Re:Yeah, right by Genda · · Score: 1

      It would be fun to build a small radar array with a synthetic aperture antenna so you could tell the difference from let's say a Cessna 152 flying by and a drone. The next step would be to use the spacial information to aim a small high performance maser to fry the electronics on said drone (of course, only if it was invading your privacy.) It would be entertaining for the drones' owners to find in post mortem that their sky spy was a crispy critter.

    2. Re:Yeah, right by turp182 · · Score: 1

      There aren't many snowmobiles, jet skis, or go-karts operating in the areas where drones are operating. Especially in the air.

      At the same time, I don't believe that audible signals would be effective since a drone operates several miles above the ground surface.

      What is needed for drone detection and identification is a wide-angle magnified video camera that scans the sky (basically the same thing as the Predator uses on its targets). A Predator is about 27x48 feet (length x wingspan), at 20x magnification it would appear to be about 1,250 feet high (assuming an actual flight altitude of 25,000 feet). A Predator should be visible at that level of magnification and identifiable based on relative dimensions and speed (80-100 mph). A human operator would probably be needed to assist with target identification (commercial jets can be ignored). Higher magnifications could be used for target identification as needed, but less magnification (wider angle of view) would provide faster target acquisition.

      The whole kit (a laptop, external battery, 2+ cameras on small remote mounts) could fit in a backpack and weight maybe 20 pounds, certainly portable.

      Predator information I used above:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator

      Anyway, that's how I would approach such a subject. I'm more interested in low altitude (tethered) helium balloon photography...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    3. Re:Yeah, right by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      There aren't many snowmobiles, jet skis, or go-karts operating in the areas where drones are operating. Especially in the air. I got a great chuckle out of this one =)

      The camera's needed would maybe be a lot more expensive then your standard 3-6 megapixel cheap ones. Once you start getting into good resolutions and light adaptability. It starts getting harder. Then again maybe an array of off the shelf webcams could do the trick, but that requires group participation and you think people are mad now about google street view...

  23. Why? by xenobyte · · Score: 1

    Apart from hobby drones (like quadcopters) it's fairly limited what drones you'll encounter around where you live. Unless you live where the wild Predator drones roam... there you'll most likely hear the sound of missiles detonating before you hear the drone itself.

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  24. Bigger tools -- was Re:Range by kosty · · Score: 2

    "Yeah, you'll need some bigger tools for that."

    Can't we just raise money to buy/rent/bribe the "bigger tools" who keep telling us that this (drone-use) horse$hit is "legal?" Just sayin'...

    --
    "Democracy." It's just a slogan.
    1. Re:Bigger tools -- was Re:Range by KGIII · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't think that I disagree with your ideals. Having said that, and - really, I don't disagree with them in all likelihood, I must ask, "In which way(s) are you asserting that drones, or their use(s), illegal to start with? What, specifically, is illegal about drones? What laws are being broken with them?"

      I ask because, well, I fear that they will become so inexpensive to operate (including training) that they will be used to increase surveillance which, while against my ideals, probably doesn't (in and of itself) violate any laws. I'd like to be able to make a clear, factual, and reasonable argument against the increased use of drones but I don't have any arguments to make against it that are logical and truthful. I can only state that I'm afraid of what it may turn into.

      Even in my worst imagined fears concerning these drones, I'm unable to find any laws that are being broken. Perhaps you come from a different country than I do? I'm from the United States of America. We're not all that free here which means that there are a lot of laws. Given the number of laws it is impossible for me (I'm not a lawyer, even then it would still be impossible) to know all of the laws. However, I'm reasonably aware of the many laws that we have to protect us and I'm reasonably aware of the laws that the government must follow and I'm unable to point to anything specifically about drones (or their proposed use, or even with the uses that I'm afraid of) which are illegal.

      So, I'm not asking you to be my research assistant or the likes. You stated that drone use was illegal which isn't very specific and certainly isn't true so I'm hoping that you have something more concrete and that you can actually point out which laws being broken by these. If you could provide specifics and case law that would be most excellent too but I'm trying to not ask for too much.

      See, in my opinion, they are making their surveillance too intrusive and too easily accomplished. In this day and age we're able to be monitored in most everything we do and, while this has always been legal, it has become increasingly easy for this to be done and for this information to be shared. The use of drones by police, municipalities, and private companies to monitor, photograph, and track a person is just yet another step in the age of zero privacy. I'm quite certain that it (that portion specifically) is legal though I'm equally certain that it shouldn't be. I can vocalize, express, this as a worry and all and that may affect the opinions of some but if it is illegal then there's an even greater chance of demonstrating the harm that this can cause to society.

      I don't know... Perhaps you meant it should be illegal? I'm really unable to find anything that indicates the use of drones would be illegal in and of itself and that includes FAA regulations and the likes - I've looked. I could be missing something. Then again, this is /. and you could just be an insane zealot who thinks that anything they don't like is illegal but I'm hoping you're more honest and logical than that. Trust me on this, I've seen it here before...

      Either way, I'm hoping you have something more concrete than the generic statement that the use of drones is illegal because, well... No, no it isn't illegal in and of itself. If there's some specific manner that they're being used that is illegal then I'm quite interested in knowing what it is. Like I said, I've even met people online who thought that DST (Daylight Savings Time) was illegal so you could just be one of the crazy ones but I'm sort of hoping you're not. It would be, admittedly, amusing but it wouldn't actually be beneficial to me.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:Bigger tools -- was Re:Range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depending on the scenario, a drone could intrude on what legally constitutes a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

    3. Re:Bigger tools -- was Re:Range by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I am not even sure that it can violate that as the courts have pretty much decided that we have no right to privacy outside of our homes or even in our homes - as an example of the loss of privacy in our homes look at the people who have been busted for walking around nude in their home with their blinds open.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  25. Re:Only Workers Recolution will do by ttucker · · Score: 1

    Nothing short of a Soviet Workers America can stop the genocidal depradations of the killer gang of Wall Street/Washington.

    Because I am sure that there is not ubiquitous surveillance and drones operating after these fabulous revolutions. Kinda like in China, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, .... Maybe you better rethink that plan.

  26. Shield yourself with text messages? by src1138 · · Score: 1

    Sounds more like a drone notifier than a drone shield.

    1. Re:Shield yourself with text messages? by TedRiot · · Score: 1

      The next version will also include a directional EMP device that will automatically fire at the drone. Too bad, if the Rotax it hears is a manned ultralight.

  27. Drones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good old xkcd has this covered already. No detector required (just walk around saying "I am not being followed by a drone" and prepare to be corrected.)

  28. Been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last year's purpose of the DoD Commander's Challenge was precisely this. One of the two teams even had this exact solution. My understanding is that it did not work well. The budget was very small at $75k or so, which sounds like a lot until you realize Lockheed or someone would have won the contract for 50 million.

    This year's (if it happens, due to budget) is a GPS replacement. My guess is that it will be a self-contained unit kalman filtered with an inertial unit.

  29. Re:Self identifying targets by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

    of course @drunkenpredator always tweets post mission :-)

  30. Hope they add feature to triangulate on gun shots by 1stumpy · · Score: 1

    I hope they add a feature to detect high speed ballistics (e.g., gun shots), and to mesh sensors so as to triangulate on the shooter ... to end [gun violence].

    See related [commercial versions] and potentially useful [open-source versions].

    ===

    [commercial versions]
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfire_locator#Acoustic
            http://www.shotspotter.com

    [open-source versions]
            http://phys.org/news/2013-04-tracking-gunfire-smartphone.html
            http://noisetube.net

    [gun violence]:http://slate.me/15JovGp

  31. Re:Hope they add feature to triangulate on gun sho by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    It's easy to reduce gun violence. Just reduce the inequality in society.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  32. Obligatory xkcd by HungryMonkey · · Score: 2

    Great, because I was worried about these.

  33. Supersonic by captaindomon · · Score: 1

    Given the Predator uses hellfire missiles that are supersonic, they're going to blow you up before it is physically possible to hear them. And the drone itself can fire from five miles away.

    --
    Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
  34. Wakey, wakey, Pollyanna... by Gription · · Score: 1

    Laws to a large part are reactionary rules created by an organization that has very fixed focus on propagating itself above any other concern. A major number of our laws come from a time when enforcement was a process where a person thought, "Should I apply this law?" and it has become a case of, "Can I apply this law?". This sickness is combined with a few other bad things. A general guiding opinion of people running government is that the citizenry is "their source of revenue". Another factor is that the punishment for smaller crimes is based on the idea that only a small number of actual infractions will be witnessed so that any penalty could be applied, so the penalty is quite a bit higher so it has a deterrent force. 100% perfect enforcement with the same level of penalty would create a level of penalty that is completely out of step with reality. (but within the dreams of bureaucrats...)

    A government is a hierarchy, an organization chart. People who exist in a hierarchy naturally wish to move upward in that organization chart. A key part of this attitude that is necessary for someone live in a hierarchy is they need to constantly be aware of influence: both their own and the people around them.
    In other words: Power
    (Everyone really needs to get a copy of the book, "The Peter Principle" and read the whole book. It is funny because it is undeniably true.)

    So you have an organization that is completely populated at all levels (except some at the bottom rung) by people with a focus on power. They tend to hold a belief that people outside the organization are their source of income, and they believe that they NEED and are justified in applying their influence/power on those that are outside the organization. (Starting to see any issues?)
    Now lets add cheap affordable automated technology that will effortlessly allow micromanagement of the poor fools outside the organization... At A Profit!!!
    You have camera's at a major percentage of intersections in modern urban areas now. It is small potatoes to add software that would allow biometric identification of people and automated identification of every single possible infraction possible. (The UK has gone a lot farther down this road then the US has...) Impossible? Uhhh... Half of the stupid fear based changes since 9/11 were "Impossible" to any adult in the 1970s.
    So you say, "But I don't break any laws!" You are deluded.
    - So you step out of a store fumbling with your wallet and drop a dollar. Camera sees you drop a piece of paper and issues your fine for littering.
    - You are crossing the street in a crosswalk and step outside the white lines to pick up a dollar. Camera sees your infraction and sends you your fine for jaywalking.
    - One thousand other little things happen in EVERYONE'S daily life...

    The quantity of people that persist in a Pollyanna belief that the government will take care of them and that the government should remove all risk from their lives are a danger to responsible adults everywhere. They help governments take greater and greater control of their daily lives. They say silly things like, "The government has a right to ...". Whoa! Stop right there: PEOPLE have rights. A government is an organization chart. You want to make an organization chart have rights that supersedes your own? Really?
    If you had a teenage daughter that danced around and played with the truth like a government, and spent money with the same reckless disregard as a government you would ground them for life! Governments are amazingly irresponsible and reckless.
    Do not give them the opportunity to digitally micromanage every ones life. That "Liberty" thing that you might have heard of demands you keep government power in check.

  35. mobile drone shield by schlachter · · Score: 1

    because naturally you need a defensive swarm of drone that move with you through the world, forming a dome around you, to shield you from the potentially bad drones that are coming to get you, or perhaps happen to be a part of the drone shield of the guy standing next to you.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    1. Re:mobile drone shield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a drone is a good guy with a drone.

  36. Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Result: Stealth drones.